US 10736130

US Patent 10736130, titled "Method and device for uplink control signal transmission, user terminal, and storage medium," details a system for efficient uplink control signal transmission, particularly relevant for 5G mobile communication systems.

• Assignee: G+ Communications LLC
• Inventors: Xianghui Han, Shuqiang Xia, Wen Zhang, Jing Shi, Min Ren
• Filing Date: March 24, 2017
• Issue Date: August 4, 2020
• Abstract: The patent describes a method, device, user terminal, and storage medium for uplink control signal transmission. A user terminal sends K predefined sequences on M transmission symbols within a Transmission Time Interval (TTI) to convey B-bit uplink control information. Key parameters include M (a positive integer for transmission symbols), K (an integer, 1≤K≤2^B), B (an integer ≥1), and N (length of predefined sequences and number of mapped subcarriers, where N=2^n with n being a positive integer). One of the K predefined sequences is sent on each of the M transmission symbols.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method performed by a user terminal for sending uplink control information. The method involves transmitting a certain number (K) of predefined sequences over a certain number (M) of transmission symbols within a TTI to send B-bit uplink control information. Each symbol transmits one of the K sequences. These sequences have a length (N) and are mapped to N subcarriers. A notable feature is that for shorter TTIs (M ≤ 7), the frequency positions of these sequences are located at the edges of the system bandwidth. The specific sequences used are determined by predefined channel resources, which can be dynamically indicated, configured at a high level, implicitly indicated, or a combination thereof. For 1-bit ACK/NACK messages, two predefined channel resources dictate the sequences, with specific mapping combinations to frequency domain positions to differentiate between ACK and NACK. For 2-bit ACK/NACK messages, four predefined channel resources are used, each corresponding to a unique 2-bit combination, with sequences mapped to frequency domain positions based on the combination.

• Claim 11 (Device): This claim describes a device for uplink control signal transmission. The core component is a transmission unit configured to execute the method detailed in Claim 1. All the conditions and specific implementations regarding the number of sequences, symbols, bits, frequency mapping, channel resource determination, and handling of 1-bit and 2-bit ACK/NACK messages as laid out in Claim 1 apply directly to the functionality of this transmission unit.

• Claim 12 (User Terminal): This claim outlines a user terminal comprising a processor and memory. The memory stores a program or instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the user terminal to perform the entire uplink control signal transmission method as described in Claim 1. This means the user terminal is equipped to handle the sequence generation, mapping, and transmission logic for ACK/NACK based on the channel resources and frequency domain arrangements specified in Claim 1.

• Claim 13 (Storage Medium): This claim covers a storage medium that stores a computer program. When this program is invoked by a processor, it enables the processor to execute the method for uplink control signal transmission as defined in Claim 1. Essentially, the storage medium contains the software implementation of the inventive method.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of CAFC dockets indicates that case 24-2048, involving this patent, was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This indicates ongoing litigation related to US10736130.
The litigation data also shows other cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (2:24-cv-00441 and 2:22-cv-00078) and a PTAB case IPR2023-00171 (Final Written Decision).
The patent's legal status is "Active", and it is set to expire on April 22, 2037.US Patent 10736130, titled "Method and device for uplink control signal transmission, user terminal, and storage medium," details a system for efficient uplink control signal transmission, particularly relevant for 5G mobile communication systems.

• Assignee: G+ Communications LLC
• Inventors: Xianghui Han, Shuqiang Xia, Wen Zhang, Jing Shi, Min Ren
• Filing Date: March 24, 2017
• Issue Date: August 4, 2020
• Abstract: The patent describes a method and device for uplink control signal transmission, a user terminal, and a storage medium. The method involves a user terminal sending K predefined sequences on M transmission symbols within a Transmission Time Interval (TTI) to transmit B-bit uplink control information. M is a positive integer, K is an integer with 1≤K≤2B, and B is an integer greater than or equal to 1. One of the K predefined sequences is sent on each of the M transmission symbols. The predefined sequences have a length of N and are mapped to N subcarriers of corresponding transmission symbols, where N=2n with n being a positive integer.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for a user terminal to send uplink control signals. It involves transmitting a specific number (K) of predefined sequences across a specific number (M) of transmission symbols within a Transmission Time Interval (TTI) to send B-bits of uplink control information. Each of the M symbols sends one of the K sequences. These sequences are of length N and are mapped to N subcarriers. A particular aspect for shorter TTIs (M ≤ 7) is that the frequencies used for these sequences are located at the edges of the system's frequency band. The choice of which K predefined sequences to use is determined by X predefined channel resources, which can be specified dynamically, by a high-level configuration, implicitly, or a combination of these. When different uplink control information is sent, different predefined channel resources are used to determine the sequences on each symbol. For 1-bit ACK/NACK (acknowledgment/negative acknowledgment) messages, two predefined channel resources are designated. If an ACK is sent, the sequences on all symbols are determined by the first resource; if NACK, by the second. Furthermore, for 1-bit ACK/NACK, the sequences are sent at two distinct frequency positions. If ACK is sent, sequences at the first frequency position are from the first channel resource, and at the second frequency position from the second channel resource. If NACK is sent, these roles are swapped. For 2-bit ACK/NACK messages, four predefined channel resources are defined, each corresponding to a unique 2-bit combination (e.g., ACK, ACK; ACK, NACK). The selection of sequences on the frequency positions is then determined by the corresponding channel resource for that 2-bit combination.

• Claim 11 (Device): This claim describes a device for uplink control signal transmission, which includes a transmission unit. This transmission unit is configured to carry out the entire method described in Claim 1. This means the device's transmission unit is designed to handle all aspects of sending K predefined sequences on M symbols in a TTI to transmit B-bit uplink control information, including the frequency positioning, channel resource determination, and specific schemes for 1-bit and 2-bit ACK/NACK as detailed in Claim 1.

• Claim 12 (User Terminal): This claim specifies a user terminal containing a processor and a memory. The memory stores a program or instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform the complete uplink control signal transmission method as described in Claim 1. Thus, the user terminal is equipped with the necessary hardware and software to implement the complex sequence transmission, mapping, and control information encoding for ACK/NACK messages as defined.

• Claim 13 (Storage Medium): This claim describes a storage medium that holds a computer program. When a processor executes this computer program, it carries out the method for uplink control signal transmission exactly as defined in Claim 1. This means the storage medium contains the software code that enables a processor to perform all the steps for transmitting uplink control signals, including sequence generation, frequency mapping, and information encoding.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
On July 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling in favor of Samsung Electronics, which had invalidated claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US Patent No. 10,736,130. Samsung had filed for an inter partes review (IPR), and the PTAB found that US Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak") anticipated all challenged claims. G+ Communications appealed this decision, arguing that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by relying on a new argument made by Samsung during the oral hearing. The CAFC rejected G+'s argument, stating that G+ had sufficient notice of the arguments and that parties are allowed to elaborate on previously raised issues.

Previously, in May 2024, a verdict of $81 million for infringement of this patent was wiped away by Judge Gilstrap after the PTAB decided the patent was invalid.

The patent's legal status is "Active", with an adjusted expiration date of April 22, 2037.

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US Patent 10736130:

1. G+ Communications, LLC v. [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:22-CV-00078-JRG
• Plaintiff(s): G+ Communications, LLC
• Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but trial commenced January 19, 2024.
• Outcome/Current Status:
  • January 2024 Trial: A jury found Samsung to have infringed claims 1 and/or 2 of the '776 Patent and claim 1 of the '130 Patent, which are essential to the 5G standard, with products from its Galaxy line of mobile phones. The jury awarded G+ Communications $22.5 million for infringement of the '130 Patent in the form of a running royalty.
  • March 2024 Retrial Order for Damages: Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a new damages trial, stating that the jury's previous decision to award $67.5 million (for two patents, including the '130 patent) was "not sufficiently reliable" due to concerns about jury confusion regarding running royalties versus lump sums.
  • April 2024 Damages Retrial Verdict: A jury awarded G+ Communications $142 million in damages.
  • PTAB Invalidity Ruling (post-verdict): Shortly after the initial January 2024 verdict, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided that US Patent 10736130 was invalid, leading Judge Gilstrap to wipe away the $81 million verdict for infringement of this patent.
  • CAFC Appeal (24-2048): G+ Communications appealed the PTAB's invalidity ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decision to invalidate claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US Patent 10736130 on July 30, 2026. The PTAB had found that US Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak") anticipated these challenged claims. G+ Communications' argument that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by relying on a new argument made by Samsung during the oral hearing was rejected by the CAFC, which stated G+ had sufficient notice.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been identified, resulting in the invalidation of multiple claims. This significantly weakens the patent's defensive posture, as claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 have been canceled.

IPR2023-00171 — [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. G+ Communications LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The filing date is not explicitly stated, but the PTAB case number indicates it was filed in 2023.
• Status: Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 were invalidated by the PTAB's Final Written Decision, which was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided text.
• Petition grounds: The PTAB found that US Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak") anticipated all challenged claims, implying grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
• Institution decision: Instituted (implied by the issuance of a Final Written Decision).
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision was issued and appealed.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) as case 24-2048. G+ Communications appealed, arguing that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by relying on a new argument made by Samsung during the oral hearing. The CAFC rejected G+'s argument, affirming the PTAB's decision to invalidate claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US10736130 are canceled. Any infringement theories built upon these claims are significantly weakened, potentially rendering them sanction-bait.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US10736130 are CANCELED. The remaining claims (6, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23) are UNTESTED by this IPR proceeding. This patent has been substantially narrowed through the IPR process.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (and its privies) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised against claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20. However, other potential defendants are not estopped from challenging the surviving claims (6, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23) on any grounds, including those based on the "Kwak" prior art, if they were not party to this IPR.

The involvement of Unified Patents in the litigation data (IPR2023-00171 filed by "Petitioner: Unified Patents") indicates a defensive aggregator's presence. This suggests that the patent has been identified as a target for challenges by entities seeking to mitigate patent assertion risks. The patent owner, G+ Communications, aggressively pursued a PTAB appeal to the Federal Circuit, indicating a strong defense of their patent rights, despite the eventual affirmation of invalidation.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is crucial to review the PTAB's Final Written Decision and the CAFC's affirming opinion for IPR2023-00171 and 24-2048, respectively. The invalidation of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 significantly impacts the patent's enforceability.

• The CAFC's decision in case 24-2048 affirmed the invalidation of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20. This means that any infringement theory relying solely on these claims is no longer viable.
• For the surviving claims (6, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23), a thorough prior art search should be conducted, potentially focusing on the "Kwak" patent (US Patent No. 10,615,925) and other art that may anticipate or render obvious these untested claims.
• Given the patent owner's aggressive defense, anticipate vigorous opposition to any further challenges.

Inventors

• Xianghui Han (ZTE Corp)
• Shuqiang Xia (ZTE Corp)
• Wen Zhang (ZTE Corp)
• Jing Shi (ZTE Corp)
• Min Ren (ZTE Corp)

There are no immediate unusual patterns observed, as all inventors appear to be associated with the original assignee, ZTE Corp, at the time of filing.

Original assignee

ZTE Corp. ZTE is a major Chinese multinational telecommunications equipment and systems company that ships various telecommunication products. Its primary line of business includes wireless, wireline, services, and terminals. ZTE Corp is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2018-10-26 (executed) / recorded 2018-10-26 — Reel 046465/0199
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HAN, XIANGHUI; REN, MIN; SHI, JING; XIA, SHUQIANG; ZHANG, WEN (inventors)
  • Assignee: ZTE CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN YANG, L. A. PATENT AGENT, 20300 STEVENS CREEK BLVD., STE 360, CUPERTINO, CA 95014.
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to the corporate entity.
• 2020-11-10 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-14 — Reel 051068/0055
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ZTE CORPORATION
  • Assignee: G+ COMMUNICATIONS LLC
  • Correspondent: KEVIN KEENER, KEENER AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., 161 WORCESTER ROAD, SUITE 201, FRAMINGHAM, MA 01701. This correspondent recurs with G+ Communications LLC.
  • Context: Transfer to asserter.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10736130
    2017 : Filed by ZTE Corp
    2018 : Assigned to ZTE Corporation
    2020 : Issued
         : Assigned to G+ Communications LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from ZTE Corporation to G+ Communications LLC (Reel 051068/0055, executed 2020-11-10 / recorded 2020-11-14) exhibits this. G+ Communications LLC's primary business appears to be patent monetization, consistent with a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. G+ Communications LLC is a known patent asserter, as indicated by its litigation history, including the PTAB and CAFC cases related to this patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Kevin Keener of Keener and Associates, P.C. is listed as the correspondent for the assignment to G+ Communications LLC (Reel 051068/0055). This correspondent has been observed in other tracked patents associated with G+ Communications LLC, indicating a pattern of representation for this asserting entity.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only two recorded assignments, which do not show multiple consecutive transfers in a short timeframe.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The patent was assigned to G+ Communications LLC on November 10, 2020 (Reel 051068/0055). Litigation involving this patent, specifically case 2:22-cv-00078 in the Texas Eastern District Court, was filed in 2022, which is within a reasonable timeframe (though slightly longer than 6 months) for a pre-litigation transfer given the nature of patent assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The original assignee, ZTE Corp, is still operating and has not filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. While ZTE Corp is an operating company and G+ Communications LLC is an asserter, the specific nature of their relationship (e.g., whether ZTE is funding the assertion against competitors) is not directly evident from the assignment records.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with G+ Communications LLC, an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The high confidence in NPE status is supported by the transfer of the patent from an operating company (ZTE Corp) to G+ Communications LLC (Reel 051068/0055), a known patent asserter with ongoing litigation history concerning this patent. The recurrence of Kevin Keener of Keener and Associates, P.C. as the correspondent for G+ Communications LLC further strengthens this pattern, indicating a specialized legal service for patent monetization.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10736130, I will first use the USPTO Patent Public Search tool to directly access the patent and its cited references. Then I will analyze the context provided by recent CAFC rulings regarding this patent.

Here's an analysis of the prior art for US Patent 10736130, incorporating the information from the CAFC ruling:

Most Relevant Prior Art

Based on the recent CAFC decision, the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10736130 is:

• U.S. Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak")
  • Full Citation: US 10615925 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: (Date information not available in snippets; generally, the publication date would be the issue date of the patent, and filing date would precede it.)
  • Brief Description: This patent (Kwak) was found by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to anticipate claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US Patent 10736130. The CAFC affirmed this decision. The specific technical details of Kwak that anticipate the claims of US10736130 are not provided in the snippets, but the ruling indicates that Kwak's disclosure was sufficient to meet all elements of the challenged claims, either expressly or inherently.
  • Potentially Anticipates Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 20. A prior art reference anticipates a claim if it discloses every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, in a single reference.

Context from CAFC Ruling (July 30, 2026):

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a PTAB ruling that invalidated claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US Patent 10736130. The PTAB's decision was based on a finding that U.S. Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak") anticipated all of these challenged claims. G+ Communications, the assignee of US10736130, appealed this decision, but the CAFC upheld the PTAB's findings. This means that, according to the CAFC, Kwak discloses all the elements of these claims, rendering them unpatentable as lacking novelty.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision to invalidate claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US Patent 10736130, finding them anticipated by US Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak"). Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that all limitations of a claim are found in a single prior art reference. Since anticipation is a higher bar than obviousness, and the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's finding of anticipation, it inherently means these claims would also be considered obvious if they were not anticipated.

Therefore, for claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20, the prior art reference "Kwak" (US Patent No. 10,615,925) alone would render them obvious. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not need additional motivation to combine "Kwak" with other references for these claims, as "Kwak" itself was found to contain all the elements.

Regarding the remaining, unchallenged claims (6, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23), no specific combinations of prior art references have been identified or discussed in the provided PTAB or CAFC proceedings for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, I cannot definitively analyze their obviousness or identify motivations to combine prior art references without further information or a comprehensive prior art search targeting these specific claims.## Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10736130 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis will address the obviousness of US Patent 10736130 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering the available prior art and the established legal precedent.

Invalidated Claims (Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20)

As previously noted, claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20 of US Patent 10736130 were invalidated by the PTAB due to anticipation by US Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak"), a decision affirmed by the CAFC [cite: Patent summary, Litigation summary, PTAB challenges]. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that every element of a claim is disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.

The legal standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 dictates that an invention is unpatentable "if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains". Crucially, anticipation is a stricter standard than obviousness. If a claim is anticipated by a single reference, it inherently also meets the criteria for obviousness because all its elements are already present in that single piece of prior art. Therefore, for claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20, US Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak") alone would render them obvious. No further combination of prior art references or explanation of motivation to combine is necessary for these claims, as the entirety of their subject matter was found in "Kwak" [cite: Patent summary, Litigation summary, PTAB challenges].

Remaining Claims (Claims 6, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23)

For the remaining claims (6, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23), the provided information does not contain specific obviousness analyses or identified combinations of prior art references. The PTAB proceeding IPR2023-00171 only addressed claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 20, leaving these other claims untested [cite: PTAB challenges].

To determine the obviousness of these surviving claims, a comprehensive analysis would typically involve the following steps as outlined by 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Graham v. John Deere Co. and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.):

1. Determining the scope and content of the prior art: This involves identifying all relevant prior art references available before the patent's effective filing date.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art: A detailed comparison of each limitation in the claims to the disclosures in the prior art.
3. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA): This hypothetical person is presumed to be aware of all relevant prior art and capable of applying it in a routine manner.
4. Evaluating secondary considerations (objective indicia of nonobviousness): These include commercial success, long-felt but unfulfilled need, failure of others, unexpected results, and teaching away from the invention.

For an obviousness rejection based on a combination of multiple prior art references, there must be a motivation to combine these references and a reasonable expectation of success for that combination. The motivation to combine does not need to be explicitly stated in the references and can be inferred from the knowledge, creativity, and common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner must provide a reasoned explanation connecting the prior art teachings to the conclusion of obviousness.

Without a detailed review of these specific claims and additional prior art beyond "Kwak" and its application to these particular claims, it is not possible to identify combinations of prior art references or explain the motivation for a POSITA to combine them to render claims 6, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23 obvious.